[Buildroot] Known working versions ?

[Buildroot] Known working versions ?

[Koenraad lelong]

Hi,
I'm very new at system-building, so excuse me if I'm asking "old" 
questions. In that case, please redirect me to the answers.
A few days ago I did an svn checkout, and with "make menuconfig" I made 
a .config file. When I "make" it, I get compile-errors (in busybox, or 
elsewhere). This morning I did an svn update, with more or less the same 
  results.
Since I think of svn as a system where you don't always have good 
results, I would like to know a revision-number that is known to be 
good. And I also would like to have a .config-file known to be good. 
That way I could start from something that should be good, so if I have 
problems, they have to come from my host-machine (a Suse 10.1 system 
b.t.w.).
Ah, I would like to make an ix86-system with a (recent) 2.16-kernel.
I hope I'm not unreasonable when I ask these, thank you for _any_ help.
P.S. just to test I downloaded the recommended gumstix-buildroot and 
that seems to compile fine.
Regards,
Koenraad Lelong.

[Buildroot] Known working versions ?

[Bernhard Fischer]

On Tue, Dec 12, 2006 at 11:09:39AM +0100, Koenraad lelong wrote:
>Hi,
>I'm very new at system-building, so excuse me if I'm asking "old" 
>questions. In that case, please redirect me to the answers.
>A few days ago I did an svn checkout, and with "make menuconfig" I made 
>a .config file. When I "make" it, I get compile-errors (in busybox, or 
>elsewhere). This morning I did an svn update, with more or less the same 
>  results.
>Since I think of svn as a system where you don't always have good 
>results, I would like to know a revision-number that is known to be 
>good. And I also would like to have a .config-file known to be good. 
>That way I could start from something that should be good, so if I have 
>problems, they have to come from my host-machine (a Suse 10.1 system 
>b.t.w.).
>Ah, I would like to make an ix86-system with a (recent) 2.16-kernel.

First off, there is no silver-bullet to versions that do what you want
:)

on x86, i usually use selected snapshots of busybox, uClibc and normally
use gcc-4_2-branch, 4.1.1 should work just fine. Binutils 2.17 and the
2.17.x.y.z.a.b.c version tend to work for me. I normally select generic
x86 device to build a kernel to play with. The 2.6.19 kernel (also used
for the kernel-headers) works satisfactorily well for me, as do the
headers.

I strip that silly -Werror off busybox' Makefile.flags, of course, as i
have gcc patches that make compilation a bit verbose and would prevent
alot of code to build with -Werror, fwiw.

>I hope I'm not unreasonable when I ask these, thank you for _any_ help.

np.

[Buildroot] Known working versions ?

[Martyn Welch]

Hi Koenraad,

I've been having the same problems.

I found that busybox would fail with "Implicit declaration of 'bzero'"
in tar.c. I decided to try rebuilding with tar disabled in the busybox
configuration. It compiled, but then when I tried the image, busybox
seemed to be mistaking 'init' for hdparm, infact everything I tried
seemed to be mistaken for hdparm!

I managed to get the image to aleast get to a prompt by building bash
into the image. I'm currently trying a build without busybox to see if I
can get a larger image working with buildroot.

If it's any help, I've set buildroot to use:

Gcc 3.4.6
Bunutils 2.16.91.0.7
Linux 2.6.19
Yesterdays (11 Dec06) snapshots of Busybox and uClibc.

Martyn 

-----Original Message-----
From: buildroot-bounces@uclibc.org [mailto:buildroot-bounces at uclibc.org]
On Behalf Of Koenraad lelong
Sent: 12 December 2006 10:10 AM
To: buildroot at uclibc.org
Subject: [Buildroot] Known working versions ?

Hi,
I'm very new at system-building, so excuse me if I'm asking "old" 
questions. In that case, please redirect me to the answers.
A few days ago I did an svn checkout, and with "make menuconfig" I made
a .config file. When I "make" it, I get compile-errors (in busybox, or
elsewhere). This morning I did an svn update, with more or less the same
  results.
Since I think of svn as a system where you don't always have good
results, I would like to know a revision-number that is known to be
good. And I also would like to have a .config-file known to be good. 
That way I could start from something that should be good, so if I have
problems, they have to come from my host-machine (a Suse 10.1 system
b.t.w.).
Ah, I would like to make an ix86-system with a (recent) 2.16-kernel.
I hope I'm not unreasonable when I ask these, thank you for _any_ help.
P.S. just to test I downloaded the recommended gumstix-buildroot and
that seems to compile fine.
Regards,
Koenraad Lelong.
_______________________________________________
buildroot mailing list
buildroot at uclibc.org
http://busybox.net/mailman/listinfo/buildroot


________________________________________________________________________
This e-mail has been scanned for all viruses by Star.The service is powered by MessageLabs. 
________________________________________________________________________

[Buildroot] Known working versions ?

[Koenraad lelong]

Martyn Welch schreef:
> Hi Koenraad,
> 
> I've been having the same problems.
> 
> I found that busybox would fail with "Implicit declaration of 'bzero'"
> in tar.c. I decided to try rebuilding with tar disabled in the busybox
> configuration. It compiled, but then when I tried the image, busybox
> seemed to be mistaking 'init' for hdparm, infact everything I tried
> seemed to be mistaken for hdparm!
> 
> I managed to get the image to aleast get to a prompt by building bash
> into the image. I'm currently trying a build without busybox to see if I
> can get a larger image working with buildroot.
> 
> If it's any help, I've set buildroot to use:
> 
> Gcc 3.4.6
> Bunutils 2.16.91.0.7
> Linux 2.6.19
> Yesterdays (11 Dec06) snapshots of Busybox and uClibc.
> 
> Martyn 
> 
...
Thanks for your suggestions. In the meantime I started from scratch, did 
a checkout again and then did "make defconfig", which I found in a post 
from the mailinglist. Now "make" completes successfully.
I'm going to explore further.
Thanks again,
Koenraad Lelong.